Another Inflexion* Point for America.(Inflection)

The Merchant of Malice (MOM) aka POTUS is exposing all of the flaws of our constitutional demmocracy.Flaws created by the impossibility of omniscience on the part of the Founders, and the time and place bound (zeit und ort gebunden) nature of their judgments and pronouncements.Having just seen “Hamilton” I now fully realize that there were no political parties in their day and they were gun shy of a parliamentary democracy which encouraged coalitions across class and economic boundaries because of its association with the power of a house of Lords and its support of monarchy.The interpretation of the constitution as a nonliving document supports and enhances this weakness.The respect for norms around constitutional weakness has saved us from disaster even in the presence of moderate Presidential moral turpitude.This administration displays an ignorance and arrogance that allows the challenging and/or disregard for norms that can destroy the “Dream”.the desire to turn the CIA and FBI into variations of a Praetorian Guard,the playing with pardon power, tariff declaration power and most dangerously treaty abrogation power.Defense of MOM is usually defense of the office of President rather than of the person in the office.Americans would do well to remember that the powers of the office have been exercised historically by normative precedent.I suspect but I do not “know ” that MOM”S behavior,behavior that has provoked conflict and hostility within America will be reevaluated when and if the allure of contemplating goods is brought to an end by economic recession.In the meantime Weberian leadership style setting proclivity has turned us mean and more unhappy.It is small wonder that suicide,drug and alcohol dependence are on the rise.

Post navigation

11 Comments

Response to Daedal2207 comment dated 13 Jun 11:03 am
One of the positive “powers” of our constitution protects all of us from elected officials who if misled by fashionable tyrannies of the majority would abuse our freedoms. This is one of the important reasons we should want to retain an originalist attitude about this “promise to the people” and avoid those who want instead a “living constitution”. As Daedal2207 indicates, there are several forms of “equality”. I have praised the unifying aspects of being made equal before the law. No matter our many unavoidable differences, a constitutional sharing of that right creates for every citizen a most important (pragmatically beneficial) form of equity. When “equality” is defined as an equality of outcome (this can extend to demanding “equalities” of cultural acceptance) and government is assigned the task of making “it” happen, the methods for doing this tend to be (are always?) socialist. One form of redistribution is done through excess taxation. As Daedal2207 reminds us, some taxation is necessary in order to have even the minimum of government services (Includes protection of boundaries and military defense). “Excess” is when it causes producers to reduce production and thereby more suffer resource deprivation than would otherwise. Daedal2207 tells us that “corporations”, with the help of lobbyists, have been successful in avoiding “supervision” and in paying less than their fair share of taxes. In a truly free market “corporations” would be in competition with other corporations and thereby for the sake of survival have to provide better, more efficient, less costly product to attract purchasers. An important free-market function of government is that of breaking up monopolies in order to cause corporations to compete for our dollars. That is why anti-trust laws exist. Free markets, not socialist good-promise-but-poor-delivery policies, encourage the most productive, life-saving means to provide resources for every person’s benefit – the “poor” included.

Please note the “equality of outcome” phrase belongs solely to DS and is on the same rational level as the fear of “inadequate resources”.Both of these represent the root cause of distrust of liberal democracy and are not at all essential to conservative thought..

I apply one criterion establishing the basis of my ideas. That is, making the best effort to empirically and rationally establish what is most probably true. If our premises are not true, the best of logical minds will go astray. Groups are in large part identifiable by the values they hold dear. “Equality of outcome” is one of those values motivating groups enamored of leftist persuasions. For instance, by reading the writings of those advocating leftist agendas (agendas that greatly strengthen the role of government to shape our behavior) the reduction of “wage gaps” is high on their agenda. No matter who uses it (and I am not the only one to use it), “Equality of outcome” remains a true statement describing a major trend in leftist dogma.
At the root of all economic systems is the need to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses. Any resource is considered “scarce” if there is not enough of it to satisfy every need. In a free market we must competitively bid against others who desire it. The value of a resource is established by what must be bid in order to acquire it. This also motivates inventive minds by way of profit to produce more thereby satisfying more of our needs. Contrary to what Daedal2207 has stated, this value is very much at the heart of “conservative thought”.

As for “root causes of distrust in liberal democracy” – why did Daedal2207 use the word “liberal”? I suggest that we strive harder to be scientific in our hypotheses as to “what ACTUALLY works best to improve the human condition”. It would be helpful to avoid the cultivation of faith-based emotions that addictively exaggerate ego-building beliefs that “my side” is good and “their side” is bad.

I am trying to understand how the founders’ “gun shy” attitude about a parliamentary democracy, with its power of a House of Lords and its support of a monarchy, equates with an interpretation of the constitution as a nonliving document. If our constitution is based on an accurate read of an unchanging human nature, its drives, incentives and disincentives, “easy” changes to it are likely to be harmful to what would be our best future. Even so, as originally embraced, our constitution acknowledges the fact that new understandings can warrant an amendment process. It is suggested that our constitution as it now exists discourages “coalitions across class and economic boundaries” – that perhaps these coalitions may be more valuable than what an original reading of the constitution encourages – that is, individually based equality rather than group measured equalities. The original constitution was intended to protect rights for each and every citizen. It was not designed to provide special treatment for members of favored, or out-of-favor, groups.
Maybe Daedal2207 can clarify what “disaster” means when he writes “The respect for norms around constitutional weakness has saved us from disaster even in the presence of moderate Presidential moral turpitude.” It is clear that he dislikes Trump. Our job is to determine if this sentiment is justified or is a hindrance to needed adjustment. The “dream” embraced by the political left is seen as a nightmare when viewed by those of us who dream of equal rights for each and every citizen. Frankly, I have been surprised at how successful Trump has been in advancing an economy that opens vast realms of niches, niches that are inviting for all our citizens no matter their group or tribal identifications. When “moral” is defined as that which actually improves the most lives, Donald Trump is turning out to be among the highest of “moral” achievers. Daedal2207 is correct when he says that Trump inflicts “conflict and hostility”. Emotional trauma is being experienced by today’s democrats because (frustrated in their efforts to create a “living constitution”) their hopeful dreams of achieving socialist utopias are being crushed. Perhaps along with higher levels of individual opportunity and greater achievement, more citizens (democrats included) will turn away from depressing negativity and find life-enhancing fulfillments.

The musical Hamilton while not entirely historically accurate contains enough to cause one to think.The prescribed amendment process does not anticipate political parties and party engendered loyalty nor could it anticipate the singular and sole ability of a party in power to bring legislation to the floor.or to keep it from the floor..
The use of governmental power to care for its citizens( not constituents)EQUALLY is neither Utopian nor socialist.!

Reply to Daedal2207’s comment 12 Jun 2018 at 10:17 am
Explain how any government can “care for its citizens” “equally” without its having and using the power of force to redistribute resources (as IT defines the meaning of “equal” – which is often utopian). This kind of power shifts us dramatically into “socialist” realms. A government that “cares” for its people by respecting them as individuals understood to be treated equally under the law, maximizes their freedom (from government edict) to pursue their own concepts of happiness, shifts us dramatically into the broad-spectrum, life-saving power of free market dynamics.

Yes DS governments have power.Presumably given by citizens and not seized.Equality before the law is not a socialist principle but a democratic one.and closely related is the principle of equality of OPPORTUNITY .The fear of forceful redistribution of resources is irrational and leads to a desire for the removal of governmental power to tax which is the means by which government functions.Lobbyists for a power elite have been far more successful in protecting corporations (now defined as people) from governmental supervision and taxation than have the representatives of labor unions and the outliers who have taken up the cause of the poor.When you are ready to define the protection of boundaries and the right to military defense as socialistic tendencies of the state then I might listen to your argument against governmental avoidance of internal revolt via application of an equal care principle. (…. Listen to but not agree with…)